Running peer assessment in your course
A short, evidence-based setup that gets the value of peer assessment while avoiding its known biases.
Peer assessment works when it is designed around what the research actually shows. This is a practical setup you can apply to any group assignment, with the reasoning behind each choice.
1. Write clear criteria, and keep judgements global
Peer marks agree with teacher marks most closely when students make a global judgement against criteria they understand, rather than rating many separate dimensions. 1 Give students three or four plain statements of what a good contribution looks like, and ask for an overall judgement against them, not a long grid.
2. Keep the grade weight modest
When peer scores count heavily toward a grade, students become lenient, and the effect is stronger among weaker contributors. 2 Let peer assessment shape the mark, not decide it. A modest weight preserves the signal without inviting inflation.
3. Require a sentence of justification
Asking for a short written reason alongside each rating improves honesty and gives you something to read when scores disagree. 2 A number on its own is hard to act on; a number with a reason is evidence.
4. Keep it confidential, and use enough raters
Confidential ratings encourage honesty. 2 And do not let fear of vote-trading drive the design: with multiple raters, reciprocity accounted for only about one percent of score variance. 3 A rubric helps validity, but be aware it does not remove friendship bias, so confidentiality and clear criteria still matter. 4
5. Weight the group mark by contribution
The established way to use the results is to moderate the group mark into individual marks, the model open tools such as WebPA have used for years. 5 This is what turns peer input into a fair, individualised grade rather than a popularity score.
How Dwixel supports this
Dwixel collects peer assessment confidentially, with students unable to see their own ratings, and treats it as one input alongside the objective contribution record and your judgement. You get the signal peer assessment is good at, without asking it to carry the whole grade.
References
- 1.Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. Link ↗
- 2.Yang, A., Brown, A., Gilmore, R., & Persky, A. M. (2022). A practical review for implementing peer assessments within teams. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(7), 8795. Link ↗
- 3.Magin, D. J. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53–63. Link ↗
- 4.Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. Link ↗
- 5.Loddington, S., Pond, K., Wilkinson, N., & Willmot, P. (2009). A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer-moderated marking tool. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 329–341. Link ↗